Re: Present Dangers -- the list thus far

From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Sun Aug 29 1999 - 04:33:12 MDT


On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Kathryn Aegis wrote:

> Not to be a 'list mom', but this thread is becoming increasingly fragmented
> and has some unrelated discussion.

Agreed. The summary was grest!
>
> 1. Transhumanism is entering the puhlic sphere, and Waldemar proposes that
> the 'nanotech santas' will have to start backing up their claims with real
> facts and science.
>
The science has always been there, people just couldn't see it.
The "throw weight" of Nanosystems & soon Nanomedicine make it clear
that this is serious stuff and provide the basis for what can
and cannot be done. A look at the Foresight conference this
fall shows that academically, this work has "arrived". The
increased funding by the U.S. Government shows they are
aware of it. The European efforts are also starting to get off
the ground.

As I pointed out at Extro4, we now have *dozens* of complete
genetic programs for self-replicating machines that have
mass doubling times as low as 20 minutes (i.e. bacteria).
Each of us has trillions of those machines in our body.

You still have a big problem of how do you "counter" the
major objection that people will have, the "incredulity factor".
That is the fact that people (outside of perhaps microbiology
or medicine) have no experience of things that grow as fast as
nanotechies say they can grow. I think the only way you
can do this is to start with what people know and take them
step by step along a realization path they find acceptable.

Something like --
   Can we assemble and disassmble complex pieces of equipment
   (i.e. engines, cars, etc.)?
   Can we assemble and disassmble complex computer programs?
   Can we disassmble the programs of self-replicating machines
   (i.e. bacteria)?
   If we can disassmble them, shouldn't we be able to assemble
   programs for such self-replicating machines?
   If we can assemble self-replicating machines shouldn't we
   be able to eventually build such machines out of stronger
   materials (stone lead to concrete leads to reinforced concrete
   leads to bucky-tube reinforced concrete leads to diamond)?

The real question people want the answer to is "when" will it
arrive, and the answer is when enough R&D has been done for
it to arrive. Necessity is the mother of invention. Since,
the semiconductor industry runs into the 5-atom gate thickness
limit around 2013, I'm betting that we will see billions of
industry dollars in research funding going into nanoassembly
shortly before 2010.

However, nanotech may well remain the realm of "santas" until
the man on the street (or at least many of them) understands
exactly what they get out of it (i.e. things like "work"
enslavement and mansions) and tell their representatives
that *this* is the most important thing you could be spending
my tax dollars on. Even if the public never gets it however,
there is a strong probability that the semiconductor, biotech
disk drive or some other industry will at some point
make a breaktrough that makes the whole process obvious.

Robert



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:55 MST